Laboratory-Generated Urine Toxicology Interpretations: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians frequently order urine drug testing (UDT) for patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT), yet often have difficulty interpreting test results accurately. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a laboratory-generated urine toxicology interpretation service for clinicians prescribing COT. STUDY DESIGN: Type II hybrid-convergent mixed methods design (implementation) and pre-post prospective cohort study with matched controls (effectiveness). SETTING: Four ambulatory sites (2 primary care, 1 pain management, 1 palliative care) within 2 US academic medical institutions. METHODS: Interpretative reports were generated by the clinical chemistry laboratory and were provided to UDT ordering providers via inbox message in the electronic health record (EHR). The Partners Institutional Review Board approved this study.Participants were primary care, pain management, and palliative care clinicians who ordered liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry UDT for COT patients in clinic. Intervention was a laboratory-generated interpretation service that provided an individualized interpretive report of UDT results based on the patient's prescribed medications and toxicology metabolites for clinicians who received the intervention (n = 8) versus matched controls (n = 18).Implementation results included focus group and survey feedback on the interpretation service's usability and its impact on workflow, clinical decision making, clinician-patient relationships, and interdisciplinary teamwork. Effectiveness outcomes included UDT interpretation concordance between the clinician and laboratory, documentation frequency of UDT results interpretation and communication of results to patients, and clinician prescribing behavior at follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 8 intervention clinicians (median age 58 [IQR 16.5] years; 2 women [25%]) on a Likert scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"), 7 clinicians reported at 6 months postintervention that the interpretation service was easy to use (mean 5 [standard deviation {SD}, 0]); improved results comprehension (mean 5 [SD, 0]); and helped them interpret results more accurately (mean 5 [SD, 0]), quickly (mean 4.67 [SD, 0.52]), and confidently (mean 4.83 [SD, 0.41]). Although there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between cohorts, clinician-laboratory interpretation concordance trended toward improvement (intervention 22/32 [68.8%] to 29/33 [87.9%] vs. control 21/25 [84%] to 23/30 [76.7%], P = 0.07) among cases with documented interpretations. LIMITATIONS: This study has a low sample size and was conducted at 2 large academic medical institutions and may not be generalizable to community settings. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretations were well received by clinicians but did not significantly improve laboratory-clinician interpretation concordance, interpretation documentation frequency, or opioid-prescribing behavior.

Significant Operational Improvements with Implementation of Next Generation Laboratory Automation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the benefits and challenges of introducing next generation chemistry and coagulation automation. METHODS: We replaced the Roche modular preanalytic system attached to Roche Cobas 6000 analyzers with the Roche 8100 preanalytical line attached to the Roche Cobas 8000 and Stago STA R Max analyzers. The system included 2 add-on buffers (AOBs) for automated specimen archival and retrieval and primary-tube specimen processing. We measured turnaround time (TAT) from specimen receipt to result for chemistry and coagulation tests before, during, and after system implementation. TAT for add-on tests was also measured. RESULTS: We completed the system implementation during a 17-month period using existing laboratory space. The TAT for chemistry, coagulation, and add-on tests decreased significantly (P <.005, P <.001, and P <.005, respectively). We encountered several challenges, including barcode-label errors, mechanical problems, and workflow issues due to lack of bidirectional track for coagulation testing. CONCLUSIONS: Next generation laboratory automation yielded significantly shortened and less-variable TAT, particularly for add-on testing. Our approach could help other laboratories in the process of implementing and configuring automated systems.

The Impact of Outpatient Laboratory Alerting Mechanisms in Patients with AKI.

Background: AKI is an abrupt decrease in kidney function associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Electronic notifications of AKI have been utilized in patients who are hospitalized, but their efficacy in the outpatient setting is unclear. Methods: We evaluated the effect of two outpatient interventions: an automated comment on increasing creatinine results (intervention I; 6 months; n=159) along with an email to the provider (intervention II; 3 months; n=105), compared with a control (baseline; 6 months; n=176). A comment was generated if a patient's creatinine increased by >0.5 mg/dl (previous creatinine ≤2.0 mg/dl) or by 50% (previous creatinine >2.0 mg/dl) within 180 days. Process measures included documentation of AKI and clinical actions. Clinical outcomes were defined as recovery from AKI within 7 days, prolonged AKI from 8 to 89 days, and progression to CKD with in 120 days. Results: Providers were more likely to document AKI in interventions I (P=0.004; OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.38 to 5.67) and II (P=0.01; OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.21 to 5.81). Providers were also more likely to discontinue nephrotoxins in intervention II (P<0.001; OR, 4.88; 95% CI, 2.27 to 10.50). The median time to follow-up creatinine trended shorter among patients with AKI documented (21 versus 42 days; P=0.11). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes. Conclusions: An automated comment was associated with improved documented recognition of AKI and the additive intervention of an email alert was associated with increased discontinuation of nephrotoxins, but neither improved clinical outcomes. Translation of these findings into improved outcomes may require corresponding standardization of clinical practice protocols for managing AKI.

Rates of Fentanyl Positivity in Neonatal Urine Following Maternal Analgesia During Labor and Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Fentanyl is commonly given as an analgesic during labor and delivery. The extent of transplacental drug transfer and fetal exposure is not well studied. We analyzed the relationship between neonatal urine fentanyl results and various peripartum factors. METHODS: A total of 96 neonates with urine toxicology screening between January 2017 and September 2018 were included in the study. Medical record review was used to obtain maternal, neonatal, and anesthesia parameters. A subset of 9 specimens were further tested for levels of fentanyl and norfentanyl by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: In 29% (n = 24) of cases associated with fentanyl-containing labor analgesia, neonatal toxicology screens were positive for the presence of fentanyl. Positive test results strongly correlated with the cumulative dose and duration of labor analgesia (P < 0.001). The odds of positive neonatal fentanyl screen results increased 4-fold for every 5 hours of maternal exposure to labor analgesia. Importantly, however, neonatal outcomes for infants with positive and negative urine fentanyl screens were the same. CONCLUSIONS: Our study establishes that maternal fentanyl analgesia is strongly associated with positive neonatal urine fentanyl screens and suggests that more judicious use of these laboratory tests may be warranted.

Provider Misinterpretation, Documentation, and Follow-Up of Definitive Urine Drug Testing Results.

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is an essential tool to monitor opioid misuse among patients on chronic opioid therapy. Inaccurate interpretation of UDT can have deleterious consequences. Providers' ability to accurately interpret and document UDT, particularly definitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) results, has not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether providers correctly interpret, document, and communicate LC-MS/MS UDT results. DESIGN: This is a retrospective chart review of 160 UDT results (80 aberrant; 80 non-aberrant) between August 2017 and February 2018 from 5 ambulatory clinics (3 primary care, 1 oncology, 1 pain management). Aberrant results were classified into one or more of the following categories: illicit drug use, simulated compliance, not taking prescribed medication, and taking a medication not prescribed. Accurate result interpretation was defined as concordance between the provider's documented interpretation and an expert laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Outcome measures were concordance between provider and laboratory interpretation of UDT results, documentation of UDT results, results acknowledgement in the electronic health record, communication of results to the patient, and rate of prescription refills. KEY RESULTS: Aberrant results were most frequently due to illicit drug use. Overall, only 88 of the 160 (55%) had any documented provider interpretations of which 25/88 (28%) were discordant with the laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Thirty-six of the 160 (23%) documented communication of the results to the patient. Communicating results was more likely to be documented if the results were aberrant compared with non-aberrant (33/80 [41%] vs. 3/80 [4%], p < 0.001). In all cases where provider interpretations were discordant with the laboratory interpretation, prescriptions were refilled. CONCLUSIONS: Erroneous provider interpretation of UDT results, infrequent documentation of interpretation, lack of communication of results to patients, and prescription refills despite inaccurate interpretations are common. Expert assistance with urine toxicology interpretations may be needed to improve provider accuracy when interpreting toxicology results.

Urine is superior to oral fluid for detecting buprenorphine compliance in patients undergoing treatment for opioid addiction.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine (BUP) is commonly used in opioid agonist medication-assisted treatment (OA-MAT). Oral fluid (OF) is an attractive option for compliance monitoring during OA-MAT as collections are observed and evidence suggests that OF is less likely to be adulterated than urine (UR). However, the clinical and analytical performance of each matrix for monitoring BUP compliance has not been well studied. METHODS: We collected 260 paired OF and UR specimens. Concentrations of buprenorphine (BUP) and norbuprenorphine (NBUP) were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in each matrix. The glucuronide metabolites and naloxone concentrations were also measured in UR by LC-MS/MS. Medications were reviewed and UR creatinine concentrations were determined. RESULTS: 147/260 specimens (57%) were positive for BUP and/or metabolites in one or both matrices. BUP and/or metabolites were more likely to be detected in UR (p < 0.001). 1 OF specimen and 12 UR specimens were considered adulterated/substituted. The majority of patients prescribed BUP were positive for BUP in UR (97%) as opposed to OF (78%). The detection of undisclosed use approximately doubled in UR. CONCLUSIONS: UR is the preferred matrix for detecting both buprenorphine compliance and undisclosed use. Clinicians should consider the ease of collection, risk of adulteration and detection of illicit drug use when deciding on an appropriate matrix. If OF testing is clinically necessary, UR should be measured in conjunction with OF at least periodically to avoid false negative BUP results.